turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Treaty of Croydon
So it's official, then? The war started in 1775 and ended in 1778? TR 22:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC) :By my best estimate, assuming it begun as you said in 1775. Jelay14 23:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC) ::Oh, I was so hoping HT was dropping dates. TR 23:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC) :::No dates at all in this book. None whatsoever. Jelay14 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC) ::::Well, either we have an inconsistency or HT dropped a large hint on timeframe. Earl of Shelburne didn't take the office of Secretary of State until 1782. In OTL he did so on the condition that the U.S. would be recognized. I suppose if things fell apart on a faster schedule he could have had the office sooner. TR 20:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :::::VR mentions the need for the Atlanteans to make up a song to replace "God Save the King." That wasn't used as a de facto national anthem till around 1790. Then again, that could also be a flap reminescent of the one over "Roll Out the Barrel." Turtle Fan 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::Since HT didn't give us a specific timeframe, calling inconsistency in USA (outside obvious shit like Richard Cornwallis) is a leap of faith. TR 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::Agreed. I was pointing out that that's a poor clue to go on for dating purposes given that HT gets relaxed about the dates of creations of songs and other literary works even in very well-researched books. And that may not even apply here at all; GStK dates to 1745. Given how unofficial its status as UK's national anthem is, dating its time in that role from "about" 1790 is a matter of opinion, and one assumes it gained popularity long before that, like "Hail Columbia," "Stars and Stripes Forever," "God Bless America" and such did here, or "Waltzing Matilda" and "I Still Call Australia My Home" did in the land against which we all have a bias. ::::::Our best dating clue might be the never-ending reminders that La Fayette is really young. And we can't get all that much more precise with those than we have been already. Turtle Fan 01:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :::::De La Fayette was really young during his first couple of years of his American Revolutionary War experience, too. (20) So 1777-1778 works. Jelay14 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::I remember VR speculating that he might be under twenty. How did he get to be a general, anyway? Turtle Fan 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::Royal favor, I guess. He came from a very prominent noble family, and was already a good officer before shipping out. Jelay14 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I thought the king disliked him. And how much opportunity would he have had to prove his fitness for command at that age? Turtle Fan 05:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::He's a product of European society in the 18th century? He's a strong young man from good noble blood, he was trained as an officer at a top academy, and he's got connections. What else does a man of de la Fayette's type need? Jelay14 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::That's enough to get on the fast track to high command, perhaps. Turtle Fan 21:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland (George III's uncle), was given the rank of major-general with almost no training, and a year or two later was sent off to fight Frenchmen and then to lead the crushing of the '45. So de la Fayette was hardly unique in his situation. Jelay14 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::Great. Turtle Fan 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::Yes. Jelay14 23:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Slight correction: he was Home Secretary in 1782, but Sec of State for the Southern Department from 1766-68. So either way, he wasn't in office in OTL during the AFI. TR 21:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)